Plymouth, Dodge '57-66 engine search

[rustyiron2]

Looking for a poly engine to be rebuilt. Small block, Plymouth, Dodge '57-66.

 

I am in south Georgia. Some travel is expected on my part.

[Bloo]

Something to be aware of if you don't already know, there are 2 distinct engine families that people refer to as "poly". One is based on the old hemi blocks, and the other is the one that survived until 1966 (1967 in Canada).

 

The newer design was introduced in 1956 in Plymouth only, and was used exclusively in Plymouth from 1956-1958. There were several displacements (including 318). However, the older design was also used in Plymouth in 1955 and 1956. A 1956 Plymouth could have either engine design.

 

The new design did not appear in Dodge until 1959 (326ci). This replaced the older Dodge 325 (based on a hemi block). Actually both of these were 325ci, but Chrysler called the new one a 326 to "avoid confusion". Avoiding confusion on this subject is impossible LOL.

 

From 1960 onward, the engines were all the newer design, and all 318s (except for 313s in Canada until about 1964 or 65).

 

A big change came in 1962 when the aluminum transmissions came out. 1962 and later engines will bolt to A-block 727s, 904s, a833 bellhousings and so on. 1961 and earlier will not. The crankshaft is wrong for sure, and there might be a problem with the bellhousing pattern as well.

 

You might get a better response if you tell us what you are going to put it in, or at least what sort of a transmission you plan to bolt it to. Best of luck in your search.

 

 

 

[rustyiron2]

Boo, Thanks. 

In my early years I worked on some of these.  On researching I have come to realize it is a maze, with a lot of conflicting info.  I have a line on a 55 Dodge 270, but my gut feeling is it won't work for my needs.  Hopefully you can confirm.  I once had a Plymouth 1957, 277.  It was a "A" block poly.  At least I know it was a poly.  My gut says I need to stay with that block style, Dodge?  Plymouth. in order to use the torque-flite transmission bolt pattern.

 

What I want to do is put a poly in front of a 46rh and put it in our Dakota.  Don't ask why, its just something I want to do, maybe nostalgia .  So I am assuming from all I have read and what you are saying is I need an "A" block, 227, 301, 303, 318 from 57 to 66.  I have a line on a 318 Plymouth, I believe is a 1958 engine.  Could use some help figuring this out.  Separating fact from fiction in this situation has become quite difficult.  I concede to a wiser mind.

 

Thanks

Rustyiron.

[Bloo]

If you are going to put it up against that modern transmission, you need a 62-66 318 (or a 62-67 313 or 318 if you happen to stumble across something that is Canadian built). It should literally bolt up. Anything earlier is going to be a headache.

 

No need to explain. The "wideblock" (poly) 318 is my all time favorite engine.

 

The 270 is probably the "oldstyle" poly based on the hemi block, I cant remember for sure. Either way it isn't set up to hook to a modern torqueflite. It wont work easily.

 

The 58 is the newer style poly, and is almost what you want, but it wont hook to the trans either. It is set up for a cast iron torqueflite or powerflite. If I remember correctly, the crank flange sticks out about 2 inches too far, has the wrong number of holes, and bolts to the torque converter directly (bolts in backwards) with no flex plate. The cast iron torqueflite is pushbutton and has no "park", instead has a drum type parking brake at the rear of the transmission.

 

It is possible that the 58 would work if you put a later crank in. Even an LA-318 crank fits, but the LA-318 crank is usually cast, while the poly is forged. A 340 forged crank also fits. I think the piston weights are different, so you would probably have to rebalance if you used the LA-318 or the 340. The thing I cannot remember for sure is if the bolt pattern changed at the bellhousing. It STILL might not hook up... or maybe it would.

 

If the 58 has dual quads or some other special parts, you can use them on a later poly. You can basically use everything from the 58. The only difference that matters is the fact that it wont hook to the trans you want.

 

Hold out for a 62-66 318. You'll be glad you did.

[Bloo]

The 62-66 (and the 58) 318 look like this. Notice the shape of the valve cover, and that the lifter valley is closed up by the intake manifold. This is the engine of which I speak. It is a 66 in the picture. You can see the flexplate (just like an LA flexplate) in the pic. These 62-66 engines will bolt to any transmission you can bolt a 273 - LA318 - 340 - 360 to.

 

 

Here is an "old style" poly head. It is what the 270 probably is, and is a whole different engine than the 318 above. These are poly heads to fit on an early dodge hemi block. There was also a poly head to fit on the early chrysler hemi block. Both look like this, but the chrysler is physically bigger than the dodge. Note that the shape of the scallops at the bottom of the valve cover are different than the 318s we have been discussing, and also that the valve cover bolts are in a different location. A dead giveaway is that the valley under the intake manifold has a pan like an early hemi, unlike the later engine (318 etc) where the top of the engine is closed up by the intake manifold.

 

[rustyiron2]

Bloo,

Thanks for the info.  It appears the 62-66 will be the way to go.  However, I will attempt to attach a picture of the Dodge 270 I spoke of.  The owner is a Hemi- builder.  He is saying that on the back of the block is an aluminum factory adapter that was used to adapt the engine to a torqueflite when the torqueflite was introduced and Dodge was still using the hemi block casting.  Does this sound right?  Would, could, the adapter compensate for the extended crank as well as provide the  correct bolt pattern?  My god, I see why people build chevys and Fords.  Chrysler was its own worst enemy.  Will continue to look for that wide block.  The Dodge situation is a curiousity though and darned expensive to rebuild for a shade-tree operation.

[Bloo]

The torqueflite he refers to is the cast iron one. It is different. The adapter he refers to is part of the stock chrysler cast iron torqueflite (or powerflite) setup. They all had that (except the first year or two of the chrysler hemi, those had an extended casting where the bellhosing connects, and are all by themselves, as they predate even the cast iron powerflite and torqueflite).

 

With enough aftermarket adapters you can make anything work, I don't know what is available today. I do know that the old stuff (61 back) wont bolt to the new stuff (62 up) with factory parts. Back in the day, that meant custom machining parts, and probably still does. Most guys didn't have that much money....

 

An engine swap of a pre-62 engine into something else generally meant keeping the cast iron torqueflite and the pushbuttons, and no "park" A friend of mine had a chrysler 392 hemi in a GMC pickup, pushbuttons and all.

 

The 62 and later aluminum torqueflites have park, and can be pushbutton or linkage shifted, depending on year. Any 62 or later trans with an A-engine bolt pattern bolts to any 62 or later A, poly, LA, or 5.2/5.9 magnum engine, clear into the 90s, and probably beyond. One must only pay attention to the fact that some much later engines are externally balanced, for instance a 360 needs a torque converter with some balance weights on it IIRC. That converter will slip onto any trans back to 1967, and on back to 1962 if you change the transmission input shaft.

 

A 62 or later poly will just bolt up to the transmission like it was meant to go there. The motor mount bosses might even work, as they are in the same place as LA engines. IIRC 5.2/5.9 "magnum" engines have the LA engine mounting bosses cast into the side, plus another set of bosses for some later applications (jeep?). I forgot which was used in the dakota. If the dakota used the LA mounts, the poly might literally bolt in, outside of exhaust issues, steering interference, etc. (the poly is wider than a magnum or an LA).

Edited April 11, 2018 by Bloo (see edit history)

[Bloo]

And to answer your question more directly, I don't know exactly what the factory adapter fixes. It does indeed take up the space made by the extended crank. I don't remember if it is just a spacer or if it actually changes the bolt pattern. The extended crank flange is still not threaded and has the wrong number of holes.

 

I did at one time have an engine with a later (post-62) crank in a 1960(?) 318 block, so I know you can interchange cranks. I never had it bolted to an aluminum torqueflite, only a clutch, and I just can't remember if the bellhousing bolt pattern matched the later 318.

 

[rustyiron2]

Thank you so much.  The murky waters are a lot clearer, though still swirling.  I am going to take your advice all the way and hopefully will eventually have a good result.  66 engine and  an A 518 - 46rh transmission.  These will be replacing the 4.7 and and its transmission in a 2004 Dakota.  Hopefully we will eliminate a lot of the electronics and go back close to the days of being able to trouble shoot and work on the road-side.  Problems still ahead, but hopefully, with some help from exearienced minds, it will get done.

[Turbine Tech]

The poly 318 was an "A" block. Will you be able to bolt a starter to a LA trans with an A block bolted to it? 

Edited April 12, 2018 by Turbine Tech (see edit history)

[Bloo]

Yes. It all fits. A trans and LA trans is the same thing (62 and later).

[JACK M]

I can only talk about 392 Hemis.

There is a guy named T. R. Waters back east that makes adapters for these engines.

The 392s do indeed have the same bell bolt pattern as the LA engines, however the pilot pins are in a different place (thus a custom adapter). All of the Hemis have the same bell housing pattern.

The TR adapter spaces the tranny back so that a late starter will work.

A good point is the crank bolt pattern. The Hemis all have eight bolts compared to six on all of the other V8s. And they are not tapped, but can be so that you can use newer style flex plates or flywheels.

The flex plates and flywheels from the 426 group of Hemis will work on the earlier Hemi cranks, so I would guess that 6 bolt flex plates from an LA would fit the Hemi based Polys but check that before spending any money.

Might be worth a google search and give TR a call. I have spoken with him and he is quite knowledgeable and easy to talk to and can probably make you what you need.

 

Again, I can only speak from my experience with the 392s.

[rustyiron2]

To

 

Today at 12:34 PM

Thanks for the info.  As I read this,if the hemi pattern is the same as the LA, the LA is the same as the "A" block.  Then the early Dodge semi hemis that have the factory spacer will accept the  727 bell housing.  If this is correct, then the 727 transmission derivatives, up to the 4.7 l engine/tranny combo, are usable,  with corrections for crankshaft differences.   I have been contemplating a 1955 Dodge "semi-hemi" poly 270 c.i.that has a factory spacer that supposedly made it possible to bolt the automatics of that time, Powerflite, which evolved into the Torqueflite. If bolt patterns are the same on the blocks, then the spacer takes care of the extended cranks on the early hemis.

Gotta love these old beasts or build a chevy.

 

[Bloo]

JMHO...

 

That is PROBABLY all true.

 

I do know that 62-up wideblock (poly) through 5.2/5.9 magnum all bolt to the trans and flexplate the same way. I dont know about the 4.7. If it is the same as a magnum, then yes.

 

If the factory spacer is 2 inches (I think it is) you will need to space it out at least that far. You may have to go farther, because IIRC that crank flange didnt look like a later one. The aluminum torqueflite's torque converter registers on the crankshaft with a big round bump. If the old crank doesn't have this, or it is a different size, you will have to make it register and center. If it is too far forward or back after you do that then you will have to change the thickness of the adapter. Then (I think) you are going to need an 8-bolt flexplate that didn't ever exist. You could make it. Maybe a 426 hemi one would work, but I wouldn't bet on it.

 

I am guessing everything you need is available today from the guy JackM mentioned. I wonder how thick it is?  I wonder what it costs?

 

No matter how you cut it, you are still going to lose about 2 inches because of the crank sticking out. (but you might gain a little back because the bore spacing is closer on a dodge hemi block)

 

With the 318, the parts on the front of the engine all basically interchange through LA (at least). For instance the water pump lower hose connection switched sides in 1970, so for a post-1970 vehicle you can just change the water pump. The timing cover is about the same on all of them.

 

It occurred to me that you could PROBABLY (I haven't tried this) bolt or almost-bolt all the front of engine parts (timing cover, pulleys, balancer, serpentine belt, etc. from a 5.2 magnum to the front of a poly 318 to shorten it and help get it into the Dakota. The similarity of the magnum block to an LA block (and thus the 318 poly) suggests this is possible. Anything that bolts to the heads or intake would have to be modified of course. I have a sneaking hunch you could save 4 inches or more overall (including the 2 inches at the bellhousing).

 

Where is the sump and where do you need it to be? That stuff all interchanges on 318poly - LA318 - 5.2Magnum. Old 318 passenger cars are all center sump AFAIK. What does the Dakota have? Pan, pickup, oil pump, etc from a 5.2/318 (probably not 5.9) magnum out of a Dakota will probably bolt to a 318 poly, if it is even different. They might be the same stuff. Front sump pans also exist. I had one on a 1962 318 that came out of a box van or a mail truck or something. That allows you to put a 318 in a Ford .

 

It sure looks to me like with that early engine you are going to spend a fortune doing stuff that would bolt together otherwise with a few parts from the pick n pull.

 

 

 

 

Edited April 13, 2018 by Bloo (see edit history)

[rustyiron2]

I have found a couple of simple 60's 318's.  Will stick with them for a starting point.  It is interesting about switching out the front parts to shorten the engine.  The serpentine belt, alone, would be a nice addition.  You guys,  Bloo and Jack, are a wealth of knowledge.  Thanks for all the help.  If I come on something interesting, I will be sure to post the info.